Ayson vs. Provincial Board of Rizal

Section 2324 of the Administrative Code of 1917, authorizing municipal councils to impose a license tax upon the privilege of taking fish in municipal waters, is a valid exercise of legislative power, and the Philippine Legislature possesses authority to amend or repeal provisions of the Civil Code and the Spanish Law of Waters concerning the use of public waters, subject to no organic prohibition.

Jose Ayson and Pedro Ignacio were owners or proprietors engaged in the fishing industry within the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Navotas, Rizal. The Municipal Council of Navotas and the Provincial Board of Rizal were the governmental instrumentalities responsible for enforcing local ordinances governing fishing in municipal waters. The dispute arose under the framework of the Administrative Code of 1916 and its 1917 revision, which governed the powers of municipal councils over public waters, and in relation to earlier civil-law sources — Articles 344 and 425 of the Civil Code and the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 — which appellants contended could not be altered by the Philippine Legislature.

On September 17, 1916, the Municipal Council of Navotas, Rizal, adopted Ordinance No. 13, the second section of which required all owners and proprietors engaged in fishing with nets denominated "cuakit" and "pantukos" to obtain a license from the municipal government before fishing in the bay within three leagues from the shoreline of the municipality. The ordinance imposed an annual fee of P50, payable every three months. At the time of the ordinance's enactment, Section 2270 of the Administrative Code of 1916 was in force and served as the statutory authority for the municipal council's enactment. That section provided that where a municipal council had not granted the exclusive privilege of fishery in municipal waters, it could impose a license tax upon the privilege of taking fish in such waters with nets, traps, or other fishing tackle, provided that no such license would confer an exclusive right of fishery.

Jose Ayson and Pedro Ignacio, as owners or proprietors engaged in the fishing industry affected by the ordinance, challenged the validity of the authorizing statutory provision. They filed a petition seeking a preliminary injunction against the Provincial Board of Rizal and the Municipal Council of Navotas to prevent enforcement of the ordinance. Their sole assignment of error on appeal was that Section 2270 of the Administrative Code of 1916, subsequently renumbered as Section 2324 of the Administrative Code of 1917, was invalid.

The Court of First Instance of Rizal, on September 11, 1917, denied the petition for a preliminary injunction and absolved the defendants from the complaint without special findings as to costs. The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court on appeal, where the appellants advanced two principal arguments: first, that the Legislature lacked authority to modify the provisions of the Civil Code and the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, which governed the use of public waters; and second, that the Administrative Code was unconstitutional for embracing more than one subject in violation of the organic law then in force.

• Legislative Authority Over Public Waters: Petitioners argued that since the use of public waters was already covered by provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 344 and 425) and the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, the Philippine Legislature was without power to change those provisions.
• One-Subject Rule Violation: Petitioners contended that Section 2270 of the Administrative Code of 1916, now Section 2324 of the Administrative Code of 1917, was unconstitutional because the Administrative Code embraced more than one subject, in violation of the organic law's requirement that a bill embrace only one subject expressed in its title.

• Validity of License-Tax Provision: Whether Section 2270 of the Administrative Code of 1916, now Section 2324 of the Administrative Code of 1917, authorizing municipal councils to impose a license tax on the privilege of taking fish in municipal waters, is valid.
• Legislative Power to Amend Prior Laws on Public Waters: Whether the Philippine Legislature has the power to change provisions of the Civil Code and the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, concerning the use of public waters.
• Constitutionality of the Administrative Code Under the One-Subject Rule: Whether the Administrative Code of 1916 or 1917 violates the one-subject rule under the Philippine Bill (Act of Congress of July 1, 1902) or the Jones Law (Act of Congress of August 29, 1916).

• Validity of License-Tax Provision: Yes. Section 2270/2324 is a valid exercise of legislative authority, the public waters being subject to use by citizens under such restrictions as the state, pursuant to its police power, shall see fit to impose.
• Legislative Power to Amend Prior Laws on Public Waters: Yes. No organic law prohibits the Philippine Legislature from amending or repealing any portion of Philippine law, including the Civil Code and the Spanish Law of Waters provisions relied upon by appellants.
• Constitutionality of the Administrative Code Under the One-Subject Rule: No violation. The Administrative Code of 1916 is neither a private nor a local bill under the Philippine Bill, and the Administrative Code of 1917, as a proper codification and revision, does not offend the one-subject provision of the Jones Law.

• Validity of License-Tax Provision: The provision authorizes municipal councils to impose a license tax on fishing in municipal waters where no exclusive privilege of fishery has been granted, while expressly providing that no such license shall confer an exclusive right of fishery. This is a permissible regulation of the use of public waters, which are available to citizens under such restrictions as the state, through its police power, deems appropriate. The section was held valid as a legitimate exercise of regulatory authority over public resources.
• Legislative Power to Amend Prior Laws on Public Waters: Appellants' argument that the Legislature could not alter the Civil Code and the Spanish Law of Waters was rejected because no organic law prohibits the Philippine Legislature from amending or repealing any portion of Philippine law. The provisions cited by appellants — Articles 344 and 425 of the Civil Code and the Law of Waters — were not immune to legislative modification. The state retains authority to regulate public waters through its police power, and the Legislature may enact laws that supersede prior civil-law provisions on the subject.
• Constitutionality of the Administrative Code Under the One-Subject Rule: Two organic acts were examined. Under the Philippine Bill (Act of Congress of July 1, 1902), the one-subject restriction applied only to "private or local bills," and the Administrative Code of 1916 was neither private nor local, so the restriction did not apply. Under the Jones Law (Act of Congress of August 29, 1916), the restriction was broader, applying to any bill, but the Administrative Code of 1917 — titled "An Act amending the Administrative Code" — was a proper revision and codification enacted to adapt the prior code to the Jones Law and the Reorganization Act. As a general rule, proper codifications and revisions of statutes do not offend the constitutional one-subject provision. Moreover, the very denomination "Code" signals comprehensive coverage, and provisions on municipal government are naturally expected within an Administrative Code.

• Police Power Over Public Waters — The public waters are for the use of citizens under such restrictions as the state, pursuant to its police power, shall see fit to impose. The Legislature may regulate fishing in municipal waters through license taxes, provided no exclusive right of fishery is conferred.
• Legislative Authority to Amend Prior Laws — No organic law prohibits the Philippine Legislature from amending or repealing any portion of Philippine law, including provisions derived from the Civil Code and the Spanish Law of Waters. Prior civil-law provisions on public waters are subject to legislative modification.
• One-Subject Rule — Applicability to Codifications — The one-subject rule under the Philippine Bill applied only to private or local bills; a general administrative code is neither. Under the Jones Law, the broader one-subject restriction does not invalidate proper codifications and revisions of statutes, as it is a general rule that such codifications do not offend the constitutional provision. The title "An Act amending the Administrative Code" suffices, and the denomination "Code" itself signals comprehensive subject coverage.

• "No organic law prohibits the Philippine Legislature from amending or repealing any portion of Philippine law, especially that relied upon by appellants, appearing in Articles 344 and 425 of the Civil Code, and in the Law of Waters." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on legislative authority over prior civil-law provisions governing public waters, rejecting the argument that the Civil Code and Spanish Law of Waters were immune to legislative amendment.
• "The public waters are for the use of the citizens under such restrictions as the state, pursuant to its police power, shall see fit to impose." — This formulation defines the state's police-power authority over public waters and underpins the validity of the license-tax provision.
• "[I]t is a general rule that proper codifications and revisions of the statutes do not offend against the constitutional provision." — This statement establishes the doctrine that statutory codifications and revisions satisfy the one-subject rule, a principle frequently invoked in subsequent jurisprudence on the constitutionality of codified laws.

• Section 2270, Administrative Code of 1916 / Section 2324, Administrative Code of 1917 — Authorizes a municipal council, where it has not granted the exclusive privilege of fishery in municipal waters, to impose a license tax upon the privilege of taking fish with nets, traps, or other fishing tackle, with the limitation that no such license shall confer an exclusive right of fishery. Held valid as a legitimate exercise of police power over public waters.
• Paragraph 17, Section 5, Philippine Bill (Act of Congress of July 1, 1902) — Provides that no private or local bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that subject shall be expressed in the title. Held inapplicable to the Administrative Code of 1916, which is neither a private nor a local bill.
• Paragraph 17, Section 3, Jones Law (Act of Congress of August 29, 1916) — Provides that no bill enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject, and that subject shall be expressed in the title. Held not violated by the Administrative Code of 1917, which is a proper codification and revision.
• Articles 344 and 425, Civil Code — Provisions on public waters relied upon by appellants as immune from legislative amendment. Held subject to amendment or repeal by the Philippine Legislature.
• Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 — Prior law governing use of public waters. Held subject to legislative modification by the Philippine Legislature.

Arellano, C.J.; Torres, Johnson, Araullo, Street, Avanceña, and Moir, JJ., concurred.